Appendices Appendix A: On-Street Routes

This appendix contains the Pedestrian out the City. This section explains the es how the benefits of potential Route Network Survey for on-street numbers listed under the column titled projects are distributed. routes. All streets included in the route “Context” in the figure listing “On- On its own, this context evaluation is network are listed along with the end- Street Routes.” The potential projects not adequate for prioritizing future points of the route on that street, the identified in the Pedestrian Route pedestrian projects. Differences of type of route, and the location of the Network survey provide a comprehen- one or two points between potential route by council district. The Pedestrian sive examination of pedestrian condi- projects may not be significant. All Route Network Survey identified short- tions in the City. Priority projects are evaluation criteria are given equal comings in the pedestrian infrastructure identified in the Implementation Plan. weight. Because this evaluation does along the route network. Potential not take into account the length of project components were then applied Criteria were developed as yes/no street segments, longer segments to particular street segments to build a questions to address the issues of safety, tend to be evaluated more favorably. long list of potential pedestrian pedestrian activity areas, transporta- Professional judgment and citizen input improvements throughout the City. tion connections, feasibility, and should continue to shape project priori- These components and their associated equity. “Safety” addresses how well tization. For implementation, the abbreviations are explained in the the potential project would improve proposed projects would require figure titled “Potential Project safety and access for pedestrians on additional review by traffic engineering Components and Cost Estimates.” the street itself. “Pedestrian Activity Areas” identifies the relative impor- and under the California Environmental Project Context Evaluation tance of particular streets based on the Quality Act (CEQA). Furthermore, Given the large number of streets in the activity centers and pedestrian volumes engineering judgment is necessary to Pedestrian Route Network, a simple that those streets serve. “Transportation determine the specific locations and scheme was developed for evaluating Connections” considers how well the features of each project. the respective contexts of potential project’s pedestrian improvements also projects. The evaluation allows for an support train, bus, and bike ridership. initial comparison of the relative “Feasibility” specifies the practicality importance and impact of potential and effectiveness of implementing the projects on streets dispersed through- projects. And lastly, “Equity” address-

Pedestrian Master Plan | 113 Appendix A: On-Street Routes

The following questions were asked Does the street serve a facility for Equity of each potential project identified by seniors or people with disabilities? Does the project contribute to the Pedestrian Route Network survey. Does the street serve a park? the mitigation of transportation Each “yes” answer was counted as one problems caused by past projects? point. The results are listed under the Does the street carry a high volume “Context” column in the figure titled of pedestrians? Does the project address resident “On-Street Routes.” concerns identified in outreach Transportation Connections presentations? Safety Is the street located within 1/2 mile of a BART station? Does the project improve a street with a history of pedestrian Does the street have bus service collisions? or does it connect to a street with bus service? Does the project improve dangerous crossings? Does the project improve routes specified by the Bicycle Does the project complete Master Plan? missing sidewalks? Feasibility Does the project improve access Does the project have local support? for persons with disabilities? Pedestrian Activity Areas Is the project compatible with current land uses? Does the street serve a pedestrian- Do the project’s benefits substantially oriented commercial district? outweigh its costs? Does the street serve a school zone? Is funding readily available for this type of project?

114 | Pedestrian Master Plan FIGURE 26 POTENTIAL PROJECT COMPONENTS AND COST ESTIMATES

COMPONENT UNIT COST*

CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS

CI 1 4-foot wide minimum median with refuges for length of street $135 (per linear foot)

CI 2 4-foot wide minimum refuge islands at regular intervals at intersections $2,525 (includes improvement to existing median) (20 feet in length)

CI 3 6-foot bulb-outs onto Major Street with 2 curb cuts each at regular intervals $24,200 at intersections (including inlet, manhole, & 50-foot drain pipe) (per corner)

CI 4 Signalized intersection with pedestrian signal heads at all approaches $135,000 and audible pedestrian signals (per intersection)

WIDEN SIDEWALKS

WS 1 Replace existing sidewalk condition with minimum 10-foot sidewalk (6-foot through $135 passage zone plus 4-foot utility zone) and add bulb-outs at major intersections (per linear foot) (collector streets)

WS 2 Replace existing sidewalk with minimum 12-foot sidewalk section (8-foot through $155 passage zone plus 4-foot utility zone) and add bulb-outs at major intersections (per linear foot) (arterial streets)

WS 3 Tree bulb-outs, 4 X 6 curbed tree wells in the parking zone at regular intervals $2,500 (approx. 30 feet) (per tree well)

TRAIL

T1 Concrete 6-foot path $50 (per linear foot)

T2 Wood staircase, 6-foot width, with wood handrails $250 (per linear foot)

T3 Cement staircase, 6-foot width, with metal handrails $1,000 (per linear foot)

STREETSCAPING

L1 Pedestrian-scale historic-style lighting at 50-foot intervals on 14-foot post $7,500 (per light standard)

S1 Rectangular pedestrian route sign indicating local destinations $100 and posted at major decision points. (per location)

* The unit costs for potential project improvements listed in this table do not include the following additional expenses: Contingency: 25.0%, Design: 12.0%, Construction Management: 8.0%, Contract Compliance: 3.5%

Pedestrian Master Plan | 115 Appendix A: On-Street Routes

FIGURE 27 ON-STREET ROUTES

POTENTIAL PROJECT NAME LOCATION ROUTE TYPE DISTRICT COMPONENTS CONTEXT 105th Avenue District 7 106th Avenue Neighborhood 7 10th Avenue Neighborhood 2 13th Avenue Neighborhood 2 14th Avenue E12th St to MacArthur Blvd District 2,5 CI-2, CI-3 10 14th Street Brush St. to Mandela Pkwy City 3 CI-2, CI-3 11 16th Avenue Neighborhood 2 16th Street Neighborhood 2 17th Street Neighborhood 3 18th Street Neighborhood 3 19th Avenue Neighborhood 2, 5 20th Street Neighborhood 3 23rd Avenue E12th to MacArthur District 5 CI-3 10 27th Street San Pablo Ave to Harrison District 3 CI-2, CI-3 9 28th Avenue Neighborhood 5 29th Avenue District 5 29th Street Neighborhood 3 32nd Street/Brockhurst Street Neighborhood 3 34th Street Neighborhood 3 35th Avenue/Redwood Rd. International Blvd to Redwood Rd District 4, 5 CI-3 13 37th Avenue Neighborhood 5 38th Avenue Foothill to MacArthur District 4, 5 38th Avenue International to Foothhill, Spot: Mid-block District 5 CI-3 (SPOT) 7 38th Street Neighborhood 3 39th Avenue Neighborhood 4 3rd Street Union St to Mandela Pkwy District 3 EXISTING PLAN: BAY TRAIL, T-1 9 40th Avenue Neighborhood 5 40th Street Whole Street District 1,3 CI-2, CI-3 10 42nd Street Neighborhood 1 45th Street Neighborhood 1 51st Street/Pleasant Valley Avenue Shattuck Ave. to Rose Ave. City 1 CI-2, CI-3 9 52nd Avenue Neighborhood 5 54th Avenue Neighborhood 5 54th Street Neighborhood 1 55th Avenue District 6 55th Street Neighborhood 1 59th Street/ Forest Avenue Neighborhood 1 5th Avenue Neighborhood 2 61st Street Neighborhood 1 62nd Avenue Neighborhood 6 63rd Street Neighborhood 1 64th Avenue Neighborhood 6 66th Avenue San Leandro to Oakport District 6 WS-2 9 66th Avenue/ Havenscourt Blvd. Bancroft to Oakport District 6 WS-1 69th Avenue Neighborhood 6, 7 73rd Avenue/ Hegenberger Highway 880 to International City 7 CI-2, WS-2 12 73rd Avenue/ Hegenberger International to MacArthur City 6 CI-2, CI-3 10 77th Avenue Neighborhood 6 79th Avenue Neighborhood 6 7th Street 880 to Oakland Middle Harbor City 3 WS-2 6 7th Street Wood St. to Brush St. City 3 CI-2, CI-3 13

116 | Pedestrian Master Plan FIGURE 27 ON-STREET ROUTES (CONTINUED)

POTENTIAL PROJECT NAME LOCATION ROUTE TYPE DISTRICT COMPONENTS CONTEXT 81st Avenue Neighborhood 6,7 82nd Avenue MacArthur to International District 6,7 CI-3 10 85th Avenue Neighborhood 7 88th Avenue Neighborhood 7 8th Street Union St to Pine St District 3 EXISTING PLAN: ACORN-PRESCOTT PLAN 9 92nd Avenue Neighborhood 7 98th Avenue Golf Links Road to Airport Drive City 7 98th Avenue MacArthur to San Leandro City 7 EXISTING PLAN: AIRPORT CONNECTOR, CI-3 10 9th Avenue Neighborhood 2 Acalanes Drive Neighborhood 7 Adeline Street Whole Street District 1, 3 WS-1 15 Aileen St District 3 Alameda Avenue Neighborhood 5 Alcatraz Avenue District 1 CI-3 11 Alida Street Neighborhood 4 Apgar Street Neighborhood 1 Ascot Drive Neighborhood 4 Athol Avenue Neighborhood 3 Avenal Avenue Neighborhood 6 Bancroft Avenue Camden to 106th City 6,7 CI-2, CI-3 10 Bancroft Avenue International to Camden City 5,6 CI-3 12 Bay Pl. District 3 Bellvue Avenue Neighborhood 3 Bergedo Drive Neighborhood 7 Birch Street Neighborhood 6 Boulevard Way Neighborhood 2 Brann Street Neighborhood 6 Breed Street Neighborhood 7 Broadway Avenue College to MacArthur City 1 CI-1, CI-3 12 Broadway Avenue Highway 13 to College City 1 CI-2, CI-3 11 Broadway Terr. Broadway to Highway 13 (Lake Temescal) District 1 WS-1 7 Brookdale Avenue Neighborhood 4, 5, 6 Brooklyn Avenue Neighborhood 2 Brown Avenue Neighborhood 4 Cairo Rd. Neighborhood 7 California Street Neighborhood 4 Camden Street Neighborhood 6 Campbell Street Neighborhood 3 Campus Drive Neighborhood 6 Canon Avenue Neighborhood 4 Carlson Street Neighborhood 4 Carmel Street Neighborhood 4 Carrington Street/ Galindo Street Neighborhood 5 Carson Street Neighborhood 4, 6 Castle Drive Neighborhood 4 Chabot Rd./ Roble Rd. Neighborhood 1 Chetwood Street Neighborhood 2 Claremont Avenue Whole Street District 1 CI-3 10 Clarewood Drive Neighborhood 4 Clay Street Neighborhood 3 Cleveland Street Neighborhood 2

Pedestrian Master Plan | 117 Appendix A: On-Street Routes

FIGURE 27 ON-STREET ROUTES (CONTINUED)

POTENTIAL PROJECT NAME LOCATION ROUTE TYPE DISTRICT COMPONENTS CONTEXT Clifton Street Neighborhood 1 Colby St Neighborhood 1 College Avenue Whole Street District 1 CI-3, WS-3 12 Columbian Drive Neighborhood 6 Congress Avenue Neighborhood 4 Coolidge Avenue MacArthur to Foothill District 4,5 CI-3 10 Courtland Avenue/42nd Avenue International to High District 5 WS-1 9 D Street Neighborhood 7 Davidson Way Neighborhood 2 Doolittle Drive District 7 Dover Street Neighborhood 1 Downtown Streetscape and 2,3 EXISTING PLAN: DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE Transportation Master Plans AND TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLANS Durant Street District 7 E 12th Street 19th Ave to 13th Ave District 2 E Street Neighborhood 7 E. 10th Street Neighborhood 5 E. 12th Street 1st Ave. to 13th Ave. District 2 EXISTING PLAN: EASTLAKE COMMUNITY PLAN 10 E. 15th Street 1st Ave. to 14th Ave District 2 E. 16th Street Neighborhood 5 E. 18th Street Neighborhood 5 E. 19th St Neighborhood 2,5 E. 21st Street Neighborhood 2,5 E. 23rd Street Neighborhood 5 E. 24th Street Neighborhood 2 E. 27th Street District 5 E. 27th Street Neighborhood 2 E. 28th Street Neighborhood 2 E. 31st Street Neighborhood 5 E. 38th Street Neighborhood 2 E. 9th Street Neighborhood 5 E12st Street 1st-13th Ave., 19th Ave. to Fruitvale District 2 E18th Street Park Blvd to Lakeshore District 2,3 CI-2, CI-3 11 Echo Street Neighborhood 1 Edes Avenue whole street District 7 Edgewater Drive Hegenberger to Damon Slough Neighborhood 7 T-1 7 Elysian Fields Neighborhood 7 Embarcadero East District 2,5 Embarcadero West Neighborhood 2,3 Empire Rd. Neighborhood 7 Estepa Drive Neighborhood 7 Euclid Avenue Neighborhood 3 Excelsior Avenue Neighborhood 2,4 Fallon Street Neighborhood 2 Ferro Street Neighborhood 3 Filbert Street Neighborhood 3 Fleming Avenue Neighborhood 6 Fontaine Street Neighborhood 7 Foothill Blvd. 14th Ave to MacArthur City 2,4,5,6 WS-2 14 Foothill Blvd. Lakeshore to 14th Ave City 2,3 Ford Street Neighborhood 5

118 | Pedestrian Master Plan FIGURE 27 ON-STREET ROUTES (CONTINUED)

POTENTIAL PROJECT NAME LOCATION ROUTE TYPE DISTRICT COMPONENTS CONTEXT Forest Avenue Neighborhood 1 Fruitvale Avenue Foothill to Alameda City 5 CI-2, CI-3 14 Fruitvale Avenue Macarthur to Foothill City 4,5 CI-2, CI-3 13 Genoa Street Neighborhood 1 Glen Park Rd. Neighborhood 4 Glenfield Avenue Neighborhood 4 Golf Links/ Grass Valley District 7 Grand Avenue 580 to Jean St. City 2 CI-2, CI-3 13 Grand Avenue 580 to Mandela Parkway City 3 EXISTING PLAN: GRAND AVE. IMPROVEMENTS 13 Greenly Drive Neighborhood 6 Grizzly Peak Blvd. District 1 Grosvenor Rd./ LaSalle Avenue Neighborhood 2 Hampel Street Neighborhood 4 Harbor Bay Pkwy. District 7 Harbord Drive Neighborhood 4 Harrison Street Bayo Vista to Oakland Ave District 1,3 CI-3 8 Hearst Avenue Neighborhood 4 Hegenberger Loop Neighborhood 7 High Street MacArthur to San Leandro District 4,5, 6 CI-2, CI-3 13 High Street San Leandro to Alameda Ave District 5,6 CI-3, WS-1 8 Hiller Rd. Neighborhood 1 International Blvd. whole street City 2,5,6,7 EXISTING PLAN: INTERNATIONAL BLVD. MAIN ST.; CI-2, CI-3 15 John Street Neighborhood 1 Jones Avenue Neighborhood 7 Kansas Street Neighborhood 4 Keller Avenue District 6,7 Kennedy Street Neighborhood 5 Kingsland Avenue Neighborhood 6 Knight Street Neighborhood 7 Krause Neighborhood 6 La Cresta Avenue Neighborhood 4 Lake Merritt Master Plan 2,3 EXISTING PLAN: LAKE MERRITT MASTER PLAN Lake Park Avenue Grand Ave. to Lakeshore Ave. District 2 EXISTING PLAN: SPLSH PAD STRTSCP. IMPRV. PLAN 11 Lakeshore Avenue/ Lakeside Drive District 2,3 Laurel Street Neighborhood 4 Lawlor Street Neighborhood 7 Lawton Avenue Neighborhood 1 Lemert Rd./ Tiffin Rd. Neighborhood 4 Liggett Estates Drive Neighborhood 4 Lincoln Avenue/ Joaquin Miller Rd. Near Head Royce School District 4 WS-1 (SPOT) 9 Linda Avenue Neighborhood 1 Longridge Rd. Neighborhood 2 MacArthur Blvd. Coolidge Ave to 35th Ave City 4 CI-3, WS-3 10 MacArthur Blvd. Fruitvale to Park Ave City 2,4 CI-3 12 MacArthur Blvd. High St to 35th Ave (Laurel District) City 4 EXISTING PLAN: LAUREL DISTRICT STREETSCAPE PLAN 12 MacArthur Blvd. Lakeshore to Park Blvd City 2 CI-3 9 MacArthur Blvd. San Leandro Border to 73rd Ave City 6,7 EXISTING PLAN: MACARTHUR REDEVELOP. PLAN 12 MacArthur Blvd. San Pablo Ave. to Piedmont Ave. City 1,3 CI-2, CI-3 11 MacArthur Blvd. Seminary to 580 City 6 WS-2 (1-SIDED) 7 Maddux Drive Neighborhood 7 Madeline Street Neighborhood 4

Pedestrian Master Plan | 119 Appendix A: On-Street Routes

FIGURE 27 ON-STREET ROUTES (CONTINUED) POTENTIAL PROJECT NAME LOCATION ROUTE TYPE DISTRICT COMPONENTS CONTEXT Malcom Avenue Neighborhood 7 Mandana Blvd. Neighborhood 2 Mandela Parkway whole street City 3 EXISTING PLAN: MANDELA PKWY 13 Maple Street Neighborhood 4 Maritime Street District 3 Market Street 6th St. to Alcatraz Ave. City 1,3 WS-1 14 Middle Harbor Rd. District 3 MLK 47th St. to Downtown City 1,3 WS-2 12 MLK Alcatraz to 47th St. City 1 CI-2, CI-3 9 Montana Street Neighborhood 4 Montecito Avenue/ Adams Street Neighborhood 3 Monteray Blvd. Neighborhood 4 Monticello Avenue Neighborhood 4, 6 Moraga Avenue Piedmont Border to Mountain Blvd. District 1,4 WS-1 (1-SIDED) 11 Mountain Blvd. Whole Street District 1,4,6,7 WS-1 10 Newton Neighborhood 2 Oakland Ave Harrison to Bayo Visto District 1,2,3 CI-3 10 Outlook Avenue Neighborhood 6 Park Blvd. MacArthur to E 18th St. City 2,3 CI-3 13 Park Blvd. MacArthur to Highway 13 City 2, 4 CI-2, CI-3 13 Parker Avenue Neighborhood 6 Penniman Avenue Neighborhood 4 Peralta Street District 3 11 Perkins Street Neighborhood 3 Picardy Drive Neighborhood 6 Piedmont Avenue Whole Street District 1,3 CI-3, WS-3 12 Plymouth Street/ Arthur Street District 6, 7 Redwood Rd. Whole Street, Spot: Redwood @ Mountain District 4,6 CI-3 (SPOT) 9 Richmond Blvd. Neighborhood 1, 3 Ritchie Street Neighborhood 6 Rudsdale Street Neighborhood 7 Salisbury Street Neighborhood 5 San Leandro Fruitvale BART to Coliseum BART City 5,6,7 T-1 12 San Pablo Avenue Whole street City 1, 3 EXISTING PLAN: SAN PABLO PLAN 13 Santa Clara Avenue Grand Ave. to MacArthur Blvd. District 2 CI-1, WS-1 11 School Street District 4 Seminary Avenue San Leandro to Sunnymere District 6 CI-3 12 Sequoyah Rd. Neighborhood 7 Shafter Avenue Neighborhood 1 Shattuck Avenue Whole Street District 1 CI-3, WS-3 12 Shepherd Canyon Rd. Neighborhood 4 Skyline Blvd. District 4 Snake Rd. District 4 Stanford Avenue Whole Street, Spot: Stanford @ Powell District 1 CI-2 (SPOT), CI-3 (SPOT) T-1 8 Steele Street Neighborhood 4 Sunnyhills Rd. Neighborhood 2 Sunnyside Street District 7 Suter Street Neighborhood 4 Telegraph Avenue Whole Street City 1,3 TELEGRAPH NORTHGATE PLAN; CI-2, CI-3, WS-3 13 The Uplands/ Alvarado Rd. Neighborhood 1 Thornhill Drive Moraga to Alhambra District 4 WS-1, T1 10

120 | Pedestrian Master Plan FIGURE 27 ON-STREET ROUTES (CONTINUED) POTENTIAL PROJECT NAME LOCATION ROUTE TYPE DISTRICT COMPONENTS CONTEXT Tompkins Avenue Neighborhood 4,6 Topanga Drive Neighborhood 7 Trestle Glen District 2 Tunnel Rd. District 1 Union St Neighborhood 3 Van Dyke Avenue Neighborhood 1 Vicksburg Avenue Neighborhood 4,6 Webster Street Neighborhood 2,3 Wellington Street Neighborhood 4 West Street MLK to 14th St. District 1,3 WS-1, T-1 13 Wilshire Boulevard Neighborhood 4 Wood Street Neighborhood 1,3 Woodruff Avenue Neighborhood 4

Pedestrian Master Plan | 121 Appendix B: Walkways

This appendix contains the Pedestrian Route Network Survey for walkways. Eight maps show walkway locations throughout the City and an accompanying table provides detailed survey information for each walkway.

122 | Pedestrian Master Plan Parks

Water GRIZZLY PEAK Walkways 135 226 Creeks and Streams 227 137

166 MILES 00. 125 .25 .5

SKYLINE

ALCATRAZ TUNNEL

84 BROADWAY CLAREMONT 173

172 140 TELEGRAPH COLLEGE 83 138 82 93 97 139 87 85 142 88 86 141 91 92 129 89

95 94 143 144

175 128 146 167 145 96

168

127 169 125 147 123

232 215 BROADWAY MOUNTAIN 81 198 210 51ST

211

THORNHILL BROADWAY MAP 12 WALKWAYS UPPER ROCKRIDGE

Pedestrian Master Plan | 123 GRIZZLY PEAK Parks

Water

Walkways

Creeks and Streams

MILES 00. 125 .25 .5 129

128

208 127 125 123 SKYLINE 22 8

MOUNTAIN 124 21 2 209 0 184

211 185

THORNHILL 13 12

MORAGA WEST 17 16 233 18 197 183 234

SNAKE MAP 13 WALKWAYS MONTCLAIR

124 | Pedestrian Master Plan 5 SNAKE

MOUNTAIN Parks

Water

Walkways

Creeks and Streams

MILES 00. 125 .25 .5

PARK 8 7 70

70 LAKESHORE 214

201

60 218 58

57 199

202 55

229 200 46 45 21 54 203 53 47 52 50 56 230 49 51

206 205 217 TRESTLE GLEN 63

LAKE PARK204

100 PARK

LINCOLN 64 MACARTHUR

159 MACARTHUR REDWOOD 23RD

43 35TH 5 MAP 14 WALKWAYS14TH TRESTLE GLEN AND OAKMORE FRUITVALE

Pedestrian Master Plan | 125 118

MACARTHUR 119 27TH 70 Parks 246 74 GRAND 116 OAKLAND 73 Water ADELINE 72 71 Walkways

Trails SAN PABLO 115 60

Creeks and Streams GRAND BAY

MARKET Bay Trail

TELEGRAPH

WEST LAKE PARK 203

243

241 MILES 230

240 TRESTLE GLEN 00. 125 .25 .5 192

61 114 206 14TH 222

245 239 244 238 163 LAKE PARK 237 204

LAKESHORE

7TH 225 100 PARK 236

18TH

216

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR 12TH

INTERNATIONALFOOTHILL

102

15TH 14TH 251 252 104 103 250 249 248 12TH 253 247

105

FOOTHILL EMBARCADERO 12TH MAP 15 WALKWAYS LAKE MERRITT AND VICINITY

126 | Pedestrian Master Plan 98

SHATTUCK BROADWAY 81

SAN PABLO 51ST

Parks

Water

Walkways

Creeks and Streams 78 79 80 MORAGA 40TH MILES BROADWAY 00. 125 .25 .5 MACARTHUR

MARKET 77 PIEDMONT

WEST

PERALTA 170

171

223

76 220 ADELINE 75 221

HARRISONMACARTHUR 117 27TH MARTIN LUTHER KING JR OAKLAND 118 119 27TH 70 GRAND 246 74 116 73 72 71 RE 115 60

GRAND BAY

TELEGRAPH LAKESHO

203

243

241 14TH LAKE PA 230

240 92 MAP 16 WALKWAYS GLEN ECHO CREEK AND GRAND LAKE

Pedestrian Master Plan | 127 159 REDWOOD

43 14TH 65 MACARTHUR 101 Parks 102 263 67 Water 66 104 1 03 23RD Walkways SCHOOL 35TH Creeks and Streams 69

105

MACARTHUR MILES 00. 125 .25 .5

111 FRUITVALE 35 COOLIDGE 36

33 112

INTERNATIONAL 32 12TH 41 120 38TH

40 262

39 261 29TH 38 FOOTHILL 260 FRUITVALE 259

258

HIGH

257 SAN LEANDRO 42ND 55TH

219

BANCROFT SEMINARY MAP 17 WALKWAYS FRUITVALE AND VICINITY

128 | Pedestrian Master Plan 224

37 35 36 Parks

Water

Walkways

Creeks and Streams

SKYLINE

MILES 00. 125 .25 .5 120

SEMINARY

55TH

BANCROFT FOOTHILL 23 24 KELLER MOUNTAIN BANCROFT 151 207 152 ARTHUR 25 27 66TH 26 MACARTHUR

73RD

MAP 18 WALKWAYS EASTMONT AND VICINITY

Pedestrian Master Plan | 129 12TH 54 2

56 EMBARCADERO 2 33 FRUITVALE COOLIDGE 12TH 23RD 112 32 41

40 262 38TH

38 60 29TH 39 2 35TH 261

FRUITVALE 258 259

14TH 257 HIGH BANCROFT 42ND FOOTHILL 219 INTERNATIONAL 55TH

HIGH

SEMINARY SAN LEANDRO

Parks

Water 66TH Walkways

Creeks and Streams

Bay Trail

66TH

MILES 00. 125 .25 .5

COLISEUM

264

DOOLITTLE HEGENBERGER MAP 19 WALKWAYS ALLENDALE AND FAIRFAX

130 | Pedestrian Master Plan Pedestrian Master Plan | 131 Appendix B: Walkways

NUMBER WOOD, GRAVEL, BRICK, STONE) WALKWAY FROM TO WALKWAY NAME LENGTH WIDTH PUBLIC/PRIVATEPASSABLE/IMPASSABLE (B/P)STAIRS (Y/N/NUMBER) (P/I)HAND RAIL (Y/N)MATERIALS (CONCRETE,NUMBER ASPHALT, OF SIGNSLIGHT DIRT, (Y/N/NUMBER)NUMBER NEAROF RESIDENCES/BUILDINGS SCHOOLNEAR (Y/N) TRANSITSLOPE (Y/N) (NONE,PLANTS MODERATE, (LIGHT,CONDITION STEEP) MODERATE, (GOOD, HEAVY) OK, BAD) 2 6947 Colton 2 Lodge Ct. 110 5 B P 0 N A 0 0 2 N Y N M G 5 6259 Clive 2751 Darnby 200 3 B P 11 N CA 0 0 4 N Y M L OK 7 2700 Las Aromas 2701 Mountain Gate @ Castle 245 6 B P 8 N A 0 0 4 Y N S L OK 8 2646 Camino Lenada 2700 Las Aromas 320 6 B P 16 Y AS 0 0 4 Y N S L OK 12 15 Diaz Pl. 5680 Cabot 200 4 B P 98 Y C 0 0 4 Y Y M L G 13 1670 Mountain 5707 Cabot 250 4 B P 180 Y C 0 0 3 Y Y M M OK 16 1844 Magellan Gaspar (dead end) 300 4 B P 187 Y C 0 0 4 Y Y S L G 17 5600 Colton 1833 Magellan 250 4 B P 143 Y C 0 0 4 Y Y S L G 18 1893 Magellan Cortereal (dead end) 300 4 B I 0 N D 0 0 2 Y Y M H B 21 2220 Braemar driveway of Beehive Center (2735 Monterey) 300 3 B P 52 Y DWC 0 0 3 N Y S M OK 22 3601 73rd 7209 Sunkist Mayfield Path 400 10 B P 13 Y ADW 1 Y 6 Y Y S M B 23 7500 Hillmont 7501 Sunkist 400 10 B P 0 N D 0 0 4 Y Y S M OK 24 7695 Crest 7640 Sunkist 250 10 B I 0 N D 0 0 4 N N S M B 25 7864 Hillmont 7879 Michigan 300 8 B I 0 N D 0 0 4 N N M H B 26 7852 Outlook 7852 Hillmont Cumberland Way 250 8 B I 0 N D 1 0 4 N N M M B 27 7835 Outlook 2920 Parker 400 5 B I 0 N D 0 0 4 N Y M L B 28 6624 Simson 6625 Mokelumne 300 10 B I 0 N DA 0 0 4 Y Y M M B 30 2848 Seminary 2851 60th 225 6 B P 0 N C 1 0 4 Y Y N L G 32 3226 Herriott 4511 Camden 150 4 B P 0 N A 0 0 3 N N S L OK 33 3151 Courtland 3150 High St. 350 6 P I 0 N D 0 Y 20 N Y N L B 34 4415 Masterson 4412 MacArthur Madrone Path 200 5 B P 0 N C 2 0 4 N Y N L G 35 4400 Pampas 3811 Madrone 100 5 B P 11 N C 0 0 3 N N M L G 36 4500 Steele 4451 Worden 175 5 B P 0 N C 0 0 4 Y N M L G 37 4445 Tompkins 4456 Hyacinth 175 5 B P 0 N C 0 0 4 Y Y N M G 38 2198 42nd 2185 High San Carlos Walk 250 5 B P 8 Y C 2 0 4 Y Y M M OK 39 2190 41st 2195 42nd 250 5 B P 26 Y C 0 0 5 Y Y N M OK 40 2215 41st 2201 Rosedale 200 5 B P 0 N C 0 0 4 Y N M M G 41 2102 Harrington 2141 Ransom Carrington Way 250 5 B P 73 Y C 2 Y 5 Y Y S M B 43 3136 Madeline 3111 California 250 6 B P 0 N C 0 0 4 N N M M G 44 3579 Wilson 2511 Damuth 200 5 B P 7 N AC 0 0 4 N Y N M OK 45 1921 Oakview 1745 Leimert 200 5 B P 93 N AW 0 0 4 N Y S L B 46 1774 Leimert 4350 Bridgeview Bridgeview Path 250 5 B P 87 N C 0 0 4 N Y S M OK 47 4326 Arden Pl. 4341 Bridgeview Bridgeview Path 200 5 B P 36 Y C 1 0 4 N Y S L G 49 4645 Park Blvd. 4658 Edgewood Ave. Elsinore Walk 175 4.5 B P 0 N C 2 0 4 N Y N L G 50 4630 San Sebastian 4639 Edgewood Ave. 200 4.5 B P 12 Y C 0 0 4 N N M L G 51 1075 Glendora dead end walkway Glendora Path 325 4 B P 3 N C 1 0 10 N N M M G 52 1601 Trestle Glen 1000 Elbert 400 3 B P 42 Y C 0 1 3 N N M M OK 53 1586 Trestle Glen 4 Bowles 250 4 B P 97 N CAW 0 0 4 N N S H B 54 5 Bowles 2 Van Sicklen Pl. 150 4 B P 31 N AW 0 0 4 N N S H B 55 920 Carlston 839 Portal 250 2.5 B P 0 N CA 0 1 4 N N M H OK 56 1000 Longridge 853 Paramount 200 5 B P 10 N C 0 0 4 Y Y M M G 57 805 Calmar 800 Santa Ray 300 5.5 B P 141 N C 0 0 4 N N S M G 58 4117 Balfour 786 Calmar 250 6 B P 63 N C 0 0 4 N N S H B 59 4117 Balfour 713 Wala Vista 250 6 B P 104 N C 0 0 4 N N S H G

132 | Pedestrian Master Plan NUMBER WOOD, GRAVEL, BRICK, STONE) WALKWAY FROM TO WALKWAY NAME LENGTH WIDTH PUBLIC/PRIVATEPASSABLE/IMPASSABLE (B/P)STAIRS (Y/N/NUMBER) (P/I)HAND RAIL (Y/N)MATERIALS (CONCRETE,NUMBER ASPHALT, OF SIGNSLIGHT DIRT, (Y/N/NUMBER)NUMBER NEAROF RESIDENCES/BUILDINGS SCHOOLNEAR (Y/N) TRANSITSLOPE (Y/N) (NONE,PLANTS MODERATE, (LIGHT,CONDITION STEEP) MODERATE, (GOOD, HEAVY) OK, BAD) 60 3879 Balfour 647 Wala Vista 250 6 B P 75 N C 0 2 4 N Y M M G 61 500 Rosemount 872 Northvale 300 5 B P 22 N C 0 0 4 Y N M M G 62 1329 Barrows 1332 Holman 300 5 B P 78 Y CWA 0 0 4 N Y S H G 63 4168 Greenwood 4187 Park Blvd 500 5 B P 83 Y C 0 4 30 N Y M L G 64 1443 E 36th 1442 MacArthur 200 5 B P 16 Y CA 0 1 5 Y Y M M G 65 2441 Castello 2543 Pleasant 100 5 B P 0 N C 0 0 2 N Y N H G 66 3020 Sheffield 3021 McKillop 150 3 B P 0 N AD 0 0 3 Y N M H B 67 2600 School 2906 McKillop 500 5 B P 0 Y A 0 0 3 Y Y S M OK 69 2745 25th 2397 Grande Vista Pl. 150 5 B P 15 Y C 0 0 8 Y N M M G 70 4079 Lakeshore 1052 Annerley Rd. Portsmouth Walk 200 5 B P 8 N C 2 0 5 N Y M M G 71 853 Walker 847 Vermont Davidson Way 250 8 B P 146 N C 1 Y 20 N Y M M OK 72 853 Walker 3560 Grand Davidson Way 200 7 B P 60 Y C 1 Y 4 N Y M L G 73 564 Valle Vista 3629 Grand Bonham Way 250 5 B P Y N C 1 0 6 Y Y M M G 74 538 Mira Vista 564 Valle Vista Bonham Way 400 5 B P 20 N C 1 0 6 Y Y M M G 75 3800 Harrison 601 Oakland 300 5 B P 9 Y C 1 0 50 N N N M G 76 602 El Dorado Harrison St. Oscar's Alley 250 5 B P 0 N C 1 0 75 N N M M G 77 4200 Entrada 4215 Glen 130 5 B P 0 N C 0 0 3 N N N L OK 78 4507 Pleasant Valley 4466 Piedmont 230 8 B P 13 Y CW 0 0 0 N Y M L OK 79 4486 Pleasant Valley 4507 Pleasant Valley 185 8 B P 0 N C 0 0 0 N Y N L OK 80 4463 Moraga 4486 Pleasant Valley Ct. S. 230 8 B P 17 Y C 0 0 1 N N N L OK 81 Broadway at College 318 Hemphill 100 10 B P 0 N C 0 Y 1 Y Y N M G 82 6098 Rockridge Blvd. N. 6001 Ocean View Ridgeview Path 250 6 B P 47 Y C 1 0 0 N N M M OK 83 6041 Margarido 6135 Rockridge Blvd. N. 170 6 B P 72 N C 0 0 4 N N M M OK 84 6132 Margarido Freeway @ Broadway 150 6 B P 111 Y C 0 0 0 Y Y N M OK 85 6128 Rockridge Blvd S. 5972 Margarido Prospect Steps 350 6 B P 47 N C 2 0 4 N N M M OK 86 5972 Margarido 5975 Manchester Prospect Steps 165 6 B P 76 N C 2 0 4 N Y M M OK 87 6141 Ocean View 6000 Manchester West Lane 320 8 B P 31 Y C 2 0 2 N Y S L OK 88 5361 Margarido 6101 Rockridge Blvd. S. 270 5 B P 56 N C 0 0 4 N Y M M OK 89 5000 Acacia 5918 Margarido Quail Lane 200 6 B P 42 Y C 1 0 4 N Y M H G 91 101 Alpine Terrace 6247 Acacia Locarno Path 160 10 B P 62 N C 2 0 0 N N M M OK 92 6247 Acacia 245 Cross Rd. Locarno Path 220 8 B P 88 N C 1 0 4 N N M M OK 93 6188 Oceanview 6394 Brookside Brookside Lane 180 6 B P 63 Y C 2 0 3 Y N M M G 94 200 Cross 6196 Mathieu Verona Path 150 6 B P 52 Y C 1 0 0 N N M M G 95 6196 Mathieu 6190 Acacia Verona Path 115 6 B P 21 Y C 2 0 3 N Y M M G 96 5850 Romany 59 Yorkshire Dr. Andeer Path 210 5 B P 43 Y CA 2 Y 2 N Y M M G 97 5766 Claremont 5651 Oak Grove Pedestrian Way 300 7 B P 0 N C 2 Y 4 N Y N M G 98 516 52nd St. 517 53rd St. 200 6 B P 0 N C 0 1 5 N Y N L G 100 3101 Park Blvd 33 Home Place 200 10 B I Y Y CA 0 0 17 Y Y M M G 101 2622 14th Ave 2573 Wallace E. 26th St. Way 150 6 B P 61 Y C 2 0 8 N Y M M G 102 2505 Wallace 2510 14th Ave. E. 25th St. Way 150 6 B P 5 N C 2 0 10 N Y M L G 103 2315 17th Ave 2342 14th Ave Comstock Way 200 6 B P 52 Y C 2 1 6 N Y M M OK 104 2300 14th Ave. 2301 17th Ave. 250 6 B P 90 Y C 0 1 10 N Y S L G 105 1747 22nd Ave 1740 21st Ave 200 6 B P 0 N DA 0 Y 4 Y Y M H B 1 1 1 2350 E. 22nd 2216 Inyo 100 6 B P Y N C 0 0 3 Y Y M M OK

Pedestrian Master Plan | 133 Appendix B: Walkways

NUMBER WOOD, GRAVEL, BRICK, STONE) WALKWAY FROM TO WALKWAY NAME LENGTH WIDTH PUBLIC/PRIVATEPASSABLE/IMPASSABLE (B/P)STAIRS (Y/N/NUMBER) (P/I)HAND RAIL (Y/N)MATERIALS (CONCRETE,NUMBER ASPHALT, OF SIGNSLIGHT DIRT, (Y/N/NUMBER)NUMBER NEAROF RESIDENCES/BUILDINGS SCHOOLNEAR (Y/N) TRANSITSLOPE (Y/N) (NONE,PLANTS MODERATE, (LIGHT,CONDITION STEEP) MODERATE, (GOOD, HEAVY) OK, BAD) 112 2777 21st 2784 Foothill 175 6 B P 0 N C 0 Y 5 Y Y N L OK 114 627 Beacon St. 569 Merritt Ave. 150 8 B P Y Y C 0 0 13 N N S M G 115 Harrison 171 Vernon Terrace 250 5 B P 56 Y C 0 2 4 Y Y S M G 116 128 Hamilton 251 28th St. 250 4 B P 86 Y C 0 Y 100+ N Y S L G 117 261, 269 Fairmont Ter. 3000 Richmond Ave. 250 5 B P 76 Y C 0 4 50 N Y M M OK 118 309 Oakland Ave 3020 Harrison Frisbie Way 175 5 B P 14 Y C 1 2 4 N Y M L G 119 243 Orange 264 Oakland Ave. Perkins Way 150 10 B P 17 Y C 1 2 4 N Y N M G 120 14 Wyman MacArthur at Richards Rd. 300 10 B I 9 N WD 0 0 3 Y Y S H B 123 5500 Doncaster 6086 Valley View Merriewood Stairs 250 5 B P 168 Y WG 0 0 3 N Y S L G 124 drvy of 1716 Gouldin 6067 Aspinwall 300 4 B P 0 N D 0 0 3 Y Y M M B 125 6086 Valley View 5921 Merriewood Merriewood Stairs 150 5 B P 122 Y W 0 1 4 N Y M N G 127 7007 Broadway Ter. 151 Taurus 200 3 B I 35 Y DW 0 0 4 N Y M M B 128 Virgo (dead end) Taurus (dead end) 500 2 ? I 0 N D 0 0 2 N N M M B 129 6150 Pinewood 6106 Fairlane Dr. 150 4 B P 62 Y C 0 0 2 N N M L G 135 1 Evergreen Ln 50 Alvarado Pl Evergreen Path 400 5 B P 128 Y CA 2 0 3 N N S L G 137 73 Alvarado Claremont Hotel parking lot 250 6 B P 45 N CAS 0 0 1 N Y S M OK 138 5859 Buena Vista 5501 Golden Gate Gondo Path 75 5 B P 31 Y C 1 0 2 Y N S L G 139 6000 Buena Vista 5232 Golden Gate Chaumont Path 275 6 B P 48 N C 2 0 4 N Y M M OK 140 5991 Contra Costa 6000 Buena Vista Chaumont Path 220 6 B P 76 N C 2 0 4 N Y M M OK 141 5176 Golden Gate 6105 Buena Vista Belalp Path 250 6 B P 58 Y C 2 0 2 N Y M H OK 142 6105 Buena Vista 6100 Contra Costa Belalp Path 160 6 B P 71 Y C 2 0 4 N Y M M OK 143 6190 Buena Vista 6192 Contra Costa Arbon Path 250 6 B P 111 Y C 2 0 2 N Y M M OK 144 6190 Buena Vista 6190 Broadway Terrace Arbon Path 290 6 B P 67 Y C 2 0 4 N Y M M OK 145 6370 Broadway Ter. 6353 Contra Costa Erba Path 295 5 B P 80 Y C 2 0 0 Y Y M L G 146 6261 Broadway Ter. 155 Florence Ratondo Path 250 6 B I 0 N DC 1 0 4 Y Y S M B 147 5891 Morpeth 4905 Proctor 175 5 B P 83 N C 0 0 3 N N M M G 151 7873 Greenly 7886 Sterling 250 10 B I 0 N D 0 0 4 Y Y S M B 152 7887 Sterling 7920 Crest 300 10 B I 0 N D 0 0 4 Y Y S M B 153 8901 Seneca 8900 Burr 375 5 B I 90 Y CAWD 0 0 4 Y Y S H B 154 8500 Thermal 8522 MacArthur 450 6 B P 164 Y C 0 2 8 Y Y S L OK 155 3239 Blandon 9110 Fontaine 160 5 B P 0 N C 0 0 4 Y Y N M G 159 Palmer Ave (dead end) 1647 E 33rd St 50 5 B P 17 N C 0 Y 6 N Y M L G 163 Frank Ogawa Plaza Broadway Kahn Alley 175 35 B P 0 N C 0 Y 0 N Y N L G 166 169 Alvarado 277 Alvarado Willow Walk 300 5 B P 77 Y CSA 2 0 4 N N S L OK 167 Hudson St at freeway 482 Hardy St 150 6 B P 0 N A 0 0 1 N Y N M G 168 485 Hardy St. 482 Clifton St. 600 6 B P 0 N AC 0 0 25 N Y N M G 169 485 Clifton St Cavour St at Redondo 400 6 B P 0 N A 0 0 10 N N N M OK 170 2020 Panama Ct. 109 Monte Vista 150 6 B P 0 N C 0 0 4 N Y M M G 171 109 Monte Vista 72 Montel 270 4 B P 0 Y A 0 0 2 N Y M M OK 172 6142 Ocean View 6245 Brookside Ave Claremont Path 250 6 B P 65 Y C 2 0 4 Y Y M M G 173 5600 Golden Gate Av. 5747 Buena Vista Rd. Arollo Path 140 6 B P 64 Y C 2 0 4 Y Y S L G 175 200' Broadway Ter. 50 Mandalay 200 2 B I 0 N D 0 0 1 Y Y S M B 183 6025 Bruns Montclair Park Bruns Overcrossing 300 6 B P 65 Y C 0 5 1 Y Y M L G 184 Alhambra Ln at Thornhill Elementary 1715 Alhambra Ln 250 3 B I 0 N D 0 0 3 Y Y S H B

134 | Pedestrian Master Plan NUMBER WOOD, GRAVEL, BRICK, STONE) WALKWAY FROM TO WALKWAY NAME LENGTH WIDTH PUBLIC/PRIVATEPASSABLE/IMPASSABLE (B/P)STAIRS (Y/N/NUMBER) (P/I)HAND RAIL (Y/N)MATERIALS (CONCRETE,NUMBER ASPHALT, OF SIGNSLIGHT DIRT, (Y/N/NUMBER)NUMBER NEAROF RESIDENCES/BUILDINGS SCHOOLNEAR (Y/N) TRANSITSLOPE (Y/N) (NONE,PLANTS MODERATE, (LIGHT,CONDITION STEEP) MODERATE, (GOOD, HEAVY) OK, BAD) 185 Armour Dr (N) S) Armour Dr. 300 3 B I 0 N D 0 0 1 Y Y S H B 192 Calmar at Mandana 704 Longridge 250 5 B P 96 N AC 0 0 4 N Y M M OK 197 5945 Zinn Drake/Asilomar 200 3 B I 33 N DW 0 0 4 N Y M M B 198 4900 Harbord 72 Sonia 200 3 B P 18 N CDB 0 0 4 Y N M M OK 199 1096 Clarendon 1099 Mandana 200 5 B P 7 Y C 0 0 4 Y Y M M OK 200 1116 Longridge 32 Mandana Circle 250 5 B P 41 N C 0 0 4 Y Y M M OK 201 903 Wawona 939 Portal 150 5 B P 77 Y C 0 0 3 N N M M G 202 801 Santa Ray 800 Mandana 200 5 B P 6 N C 0 0 4 N Y M M OK 203 700 Mandana 689 Santa Ray 200 5 B P 16 N AWD 0 0 4 N Y M M OK 204 1085 Brookwood 850 Alma 250 5 B P 148 Y AW 0 0 4 N Y S L OK 205 906 Hillcroft 924 Larkspur Rd 175 5 B P 58 N CWA 0 0 4 N N S M OK 206 796 Rosemount 801 Longridge 200 6 B P 27 N C 0 0 4 N Y M M OK 207 7867 Sunkist 7872 Michigan 300 6 B I Y Y DW 0 0 4 N N M M B 208 1837 Indian 25 Overlake Ct. 250 4 B P 107 N AW 0 1 5 Y Y M N OK 209 5607 Merriewood 5901 Marden Ln 100 4 B P 110 Y WA 0 1 4 Y Y M N G 210 5901 Marden Ln 5925 Thornhill 100 4 B P 72 Y WA 0 0 4 Y Y M N OK 211 Florence & Merriewood 5733 Grisborne Ave. 175 3 B I 0 N D 0 0 5 Y Y M M B 214 Leimert @ Monterey Joaquin Miller Ct. 6 @ Mountain Dimond Canyon Trail 170 8 B P 0 N C 2 0 0 N Y N L G 215 Morpeth & Harbor 30 Mandalay (backside of St. Theresa Church) 250 10 B P 0 N A 0 0 8 Y Y M L G 216 10th & Alice 11th and Alice 200 6 B P 0 N A 0 0 0 Y Y N L OK 217 1011 Hubert 982 Grosvenor 200 4 B P 9 N A 0 0 6 N N M M G 218 849 Walavista walkway 55 800 5 B P 0 N CAD 0 Y 20 N N N M OK 219 3331 E 8th St E. 9th St. & 34th Ave. 100 5 B P 0 N C 0 0 0 Y Y N L B 220 Croxton & Richmond 3084 Richmond 100 6 B P Y Y C 0 0 20 N N M L OK 221 3084 Richmond 3287 Kempton 250 6 B P 159 Y C 0 Y 20 N N M M OK 222 1733 Broadway 1720 Telegraph 125 10 B P 0 N C 0 Y 0 N Y N L G 223 78 Rio Vista 645 Fairmount 175 2x5' B P Y Y C 0 0 7 N N S M OK 224 4305 Harbor View 4069 Huntington 175 5 B P 0 N D 0 0 4 N N M L G 225 1568 Madison 1547 Lakeside 300 4 P P 0 N C 0 6 80 N Y M L G 226 81 Alvarado 681 Alvarado Eucalyptus Path 400 5 B P 139 Y CA 2 3 10 N N S M G 227 mid. of Euc. Path middle of Willow Walk Sunset Trail 900 4 B P 0 N A 1 0 20 N N N L OK 228 6101 Thornhill 5500 Doncaster Merriewood Stairs 200 5 B P 98 Y WG 0 0 3 N Y S L G 229 780 Carlston 910 Paramount 200 5 B I 101 N C 0 0 3 Y Y S H OK 230 walkway 192 619 Paloma 1700 10 B P 0 N D 0 0 30 N N N L G 231 717 Longridge 707 Rosemount 50 5 B P 7 N CG 0 0 1 N Y M M G 232 1 Clarewood Mall 7 Clarewood Mall Clarewood Mall 150 5 V P 2 N C 3 3 8 N N N M G 233 1900 Mountain Cortereal (dead end) 300 6 B P 15 Y CDA 0 0 1 Y Y M L G 234 LaSalle (dead end) Medau (dead end) 150 4 B P 0 N C 0 0 1 N Y N L G 235 Cortereal (dead end) walkway 234 100 3 B P 0 N C 0 0 1 N Y N L G 236 Swan's Market Swan's Market 200 10 V P 0 N C 0 Y 25 N Y N L G 237 Clay St. Jefferson St. 250 20 V P 8 Y SB 0 Y 1 N Y N L G 238 Jefferson St. MLK Jr Way 250 25 B P 0 N C 0 Y 1 N Y N L G 239 Castro St. 13th at Preservation Park Way 50 5 V P 0 N C 0 0 3 N Y N L G 240 21st St walkway 241 200 30 V P 8 Y SB 0 0 1 N Y M L G

Pedestrian Master Plan | 135 Appendix B: Walkways

136 | Pedestrian Master Plan Pedestrian Master Plan | 137 Appendix C: Street Transformations

The following examples of street transformations are offered as visions for progressive pedestrian planning. These projects are only conceptual, serving as illustrations of ideas. However, they illustrate the extent of possible changes that may begin with a greater emphasis on designing and planning for pedestrians. City Route Before and After City routes connect multiple districts and define the city as a whole. They are busy commercial and residential ILLUSTRATION 47 CITY ROUTE BEFORE streets lined with storefronts and sidewalks, pedestrian-scale lighting, apartment buildings. Large numbers high visibility crosswalks with curb of pedestrians, drivers, transit riders, ramps, pedestrian refuge islands, bike and bicyclists use city routes. Existing lanes, and street furniture including conditions often include wide lanes, bike racks and bus shelters with large intersections, limited traffic signage for riders. On-street parking, signals and crosswalks, and dedicated planter boxes, and street trees help turn lanes that create an inhospitable ILLUSTRATION 48 CITY ROUTE SECTION BEFORE buffer the sidewalk from motor vehicle environment for pedestrians. traffic. The result is boulevards that In contrast, consider a city route with promote social and economic activity the following improvements: wide and define the character of the city.

138 | Pedestrian Master Plan ILLUSTRATION 50 CITY ROUTE SECTION AFTER

ILLUSTRATION 49 CITY ROUTE AFTER District Route In contrast, consider a district route Before and After after a “road diet” from two travel District routes serve districts of the lanes in each direction to one travel city by connecting schools, community lane in each direction plus a center turn centers, and neighborhood shops. lane. The extra room makes way They commonly have cross-town bus for wider sidewalks, street trees, and routes that connect residential neigh- bike lanes. Pedestrian route signs borhoods to commercial districts and provide guidance to important neigh- transit hubs. A typical district route borhood destinations and pedestrian- might include four travel lanes and scale lighting improves safety by pro- narrow sidewalks that are interrupted viding continuous illumination of the by utility poles, broken concrete, and sidewalks. Proposals for lane reductions driveway curbcuts. require careful study and City Council approval because such reconﬁgurations may create motor vehicle congestion.

Pedestrian Master Plan | 139 Appendix C: Street Transformations

and stop signs. The illustration shows not currently exist, natural features the addition of street trees, slow like creeks, ridges, and shorelines may points, pedestrian-scale lighting, and also define routes for such trails. The signage for an exemplary pedestrian continuing development of the Bay neighborhood route. The speed humps Trail and the Ridge Trail attest to the and slow points reinforce each other importance of long range planning ILLUSTRATION 51 DISTRICT ROUTE SECTION BEFORE in slowing traffic while the lighting and the value of natural features in and trees create a vertical buffer bringing such trails to fruition. between the sidewalk and the street. Trail Route Before and After Underused areas beneath BART lines

and along railroad tracks provide ILLUSTRATION 53 DISTRICT ROUTE SECTION AFTER opportunities for mixed-use paths and greenways in the City’s most urban- ILLUSTRATION 52 DISTRICT ROUTE BEFORE ized neighborhoods. Existing condi- Neighborhood Route tions may include underutilized rail Before and After tracks, no sidewalks or trails, and Neighborhood routes are residential poor connections to the neighbor- streets with one travel lane in each hood. By adding mixed-use paths, ball direction plus on-street parallel park- fields, playgrounds, dog runs, and ing. At their best, they have sidewalks other public facilities, these kinds of that are continuous, unobstructed, projects could be as successful as the ILLUSTRATION 54 DISTRICT ROUTE AFTER and well-maintained. Motor vehicles Ohlone Trail in Berkeley, Albany, and move slowly because of speed humps El Cerrito. While rights-of-way may

140 | Pedestrian Master Plan Pedestrian Master Plan | 141 Appendix C: Street Transformations

ILLUSTRATION 55 NEIGHBORHOOD ROUTE BEFORE ILLUSTRATION 57 NEIGHBORHOOD ROUTE SECTION BEFORE

ILLUSTRATION 56 NEIGHBORHOOD ROUTE AFTER ILLUSTRATION 58 NEIGHBORHOOD ROUTE SECTION AFTER

142 | Pedestrian Master Plan ILLUSTRATION 59 TRAIL ROUTE BEFORE ILLUSTRATION 61 TRAIL ROUTE SECTION BEFORE

ILLUSTRATION 60 TRAIL ROUTE AFTER ILLUSTRATION 62 TRAIL ROUTE SECTION AFTER

Pedestrian Master Plan | 143 Appendix D: FHWA Crosswalk Guidelines

The following table is from “Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Executive Summary and Recommended Guidelines” by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA 2002a, p. 19).

TABLE 29 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INSTALLING MARKED CROSSWALKS AND OTHER NEEDED PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS AT UNCONTROLLED LOCATIONS.

These guidelines include intersection and midblock locations selectively. Before installing new marked crosswalks, an engi- with no traffic signals or stop sign on the approach to the neering study is needed to show whether the location is suitable crossing. They do not apply to schoolcrossings. A two-way cen- for a marked crosswalk. For an engineering study, a site review ter turn lane is not considered a median. Crosswalks should not may be sufficient at some locations, while a more in-depth be installed at locations which could present an increased safety study of pedestrian volumes, vehicle speeds, sight distance, risk to pedestrians, such as where there is poor sight distance, vehicle mix, etc. may be needed at other sites. It is recommend- complex or confusing designs, substantial volumes of heavy ed that a minimum of 20 pedestrian crossings per peak hour trucks, or other dangers, without first providing adequate (or 15 or more elderly and/or child pedestrians) exist at a loca- design features and/or traffic control devices. Adding cross- tion before placing a high priority on the installation of a walks alone will not make crossings safer, nor necessarily result marked crosswalk alone. Possible increase in pedestrian crash in more vehicles stopping for pedestrians. Whether marked risk may occur if crosswalks are added without other pedestri- crosswalks are installed, it is important to consider other pedes- an facility enhancements. These locations should be closely trian facility enhancements, as needed, to improve the safety of monitored and enhanced with other pedestrian crossing the crossing (e.g., raised median, traffic signal, roadway nar- improvements, if necessary, before adding a marked crosswalk. rowing, enhanced overhead lighting, traffic calming measures, Marked crosswalks alone are not recommended, since pedestri- curb extensions). These are general recommendations; good an crash risk may be increased with marked crosswalks. engineering judgment should be used in individual cases for Consider using other treatments, such as traffic signals with deciding where to install crosswalks.** Where speed limit pedestrian signals to improve crossing safety for pedestrians. exceeds 40 mph, marked crosswalks alone should not be used The raised median or crossing island must be at least 4 ft wide at unsignalized locations. Candidate sites for marked cross- and 6 ft long to adequately serve as a refuge area for pedestri- walks. Marked crosswalks must be installed carefully and ans in accordance with MUTCD and AASHTO guidelines.

144 | Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix E: Future Directions in Pedestrian Planning

This appendix provides a brief overview presence of other motor vehicles. LOS be unpleasant places to walk and dan- of two emerging tools of significant E indicates maximum use of a facility gerous places to cross. Second, there importance to pedestrian planning. with a large number of motor vehicles are no accepted methodologies for Current research on pedestrian level still moving at reasonable speeds. LOS measuring the inadequacies of a pedes- of service is developing algorithms to F indicates the breakdown of traffic trian facility, quantifying the benefits of analyze the safety and comfort – as well flow where large numbers of motor pedestrian improvements, or weighing as capacity – of pedestrian facilities. vehicles are moving at inefficient how service “improvements” for one Space-syntax uses modeling to compute speeds. The Highway Capacity Manual transportation mode impact service for pedestrian volumes based on a street also specifies an analogous system of other modes. Consequently, service grid’s connectivity and its accompanying evaluation that measures the capacity improvements for motor vehicles may land uses. While insufficiently developed of a sidewalk in relation to the number be identified and justified in precise for the completion of this Plan, these of pedestrians using the facility terms whereas service improvements tools are identified here as potential (Transportation Research Board 2000). for pedestrians often are limited to resources for future pedestrian planning. In this case, LOS A signifies a sidewalk qualitative justifications on the benefits where pedestrian movement is not of “alternative” transportation. Pedestrian Level of Service impeded by the presence of other The Florida Department of Level of service (LOS) is a standard pedestrians. At the other extreme, LOS Transportation is developing a multi- measure for evaluating the performance F indicates a crowded sidewalk where modal level of service analysis to of street segments and intersections pedestrians cannot take full steps and address these and other concerns with based on motor vehicle traffic flow are likely bumping into each other. existing LOS. The analysis applies to with a simple ranking system of “A” areas designated as multimodal trans- through “F.” LOS A signifies a facility For pedestrian planning, existing LOS portation districts that are character- where each motor vehicle’s movement poses two significant problems. First, ized by mixed-use development, tran- is minimally impeded by the presence while the pedestrian level of service of other motor vehicles. LOS B, C, and measures sidewalk capacity it does not D signify an increasing volume of address the safety or quality of the motor vehicles and increasing impedi- pedestrian’s experience. Streets with ments to any particular driver by the adequate sidewalk capacity may also

Pedestrian Master Plan | 145 Appendix E: Future Directions in Pedestrian Planning

sit service, and street priority for include an analysis of pedestrian cross- street level for an entire city. Space non-automobile modes. This research ings. At a broader level of criticism, Syntax was created at the University identifies the following most pedestrian level of service does not College of London in the mid-1980’s significant street factors shaping account for contextual factors like resi- and is widely used throughout Europe the pedestrian experience: dential and commercial densities, street and Asia. level activity, and connectivity of presence (or absence) of a sidewalk Despite these uses, Space Syntax is the street grid that are crucial factors largely unknown in the United States. distance between pedestrians and to overall walkability. The National Highway Traffic Safety motor vehicles For additional information, see Administration (NHTSA) and the presence of physical barriers in the Guttenplan (2001) and the Florida Federal Highway Administration buffer space separating pedestrians Department of Transportation (FHWA) recently identified pedestrian and vehicles (http://www11.myflorida.com/plan- exposure data as the least understood and most important area of research for volume and speed of motor vehicles ning/systems/sm/los/default.htm). pedestrian planners and decision-makers A number of other inputs characteriz- Space-Syntax (NHTSA 2000). Space Syntax addresses ing street geometry, traffic signaliza- Space Syntax is a suite of modeling this need by providing pedestrian vol- tion, and vehicle flow are also used to tools and simulation techniques used to ume predictions that may be analyzed compute pedestrian LOS. This output analyze pedestrian movement and to with pedestrian collision data. The is also used as an input for computing predict pedestrian volume. Space resulting risk index provides planners transit LOS. Syntax uses the layout and connectivity with an intersection by intersection list, For future pedestrian planning, such a of urban street grids to generate normalized by volume, of a city’s most methodology would be useful for iden- “movement potentials” which it com- dangerous intersections. tifying inadequacies in existing pedes- pares to sampled pedestrian counts at To predict pedestrian volumes in the trian facilities and specifying the bene- key locations and land-use indicators City of Oakland, GIS centerline files fits of potential pedestrian improve- such as population density. The result- were used to construct a model net- ments. A significant shortcoming of ing correlations are used to predict work of the City’s approximately 7,000 this methodology is that it does not pedestrian volumes on a street by streets. This network was fed into the

146 | Pedestrian Master Plan MAP 20 CITY OF OAKLAND PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES—SPACE SYNTAX MODEL

LEGEND

RELATIVE PEDESTRIAN RISK

SLIGHTLY DANGEROUS

MODERATELY DANGEROUS

MOST DANGEROUS

PREDICTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME

0 - 49 PEDESTRIANS

50 - 107 PEDESTRIANS

108 - 169 PEDESTRIANS

110 - 241 PEDESTRIANS

242 - 511 PEDESTRIANS

511 PEDESTRIANS OR MORE

Orange balloons measure actual pedestrian risk as a function of annual accidents per peak hour pedestrian. Noah Raford, 2002 Noah Raford, © Volume estimates are accurate +/- 23% (R=0.7713, p<0.0001). Values should be taken as estimates only. Thanks to the Space Syntax Laboratory, the UC Berkeley Traffic Safety Center, Urbitran Associates, and the Oakland Pedestrian Safety Project.

Pedestrian Master Plan | 147 Appendix E: Future Directions in Pedestrian Planning

Ovation Space Syntax processing shades of orange. White colored per peak hour with several streets engine for processing. The model’s streets equal low volume, while including Broadway exhibiting much initial output was weighted with 2000 orange equals high volume. Orange higher predictions. Census population density at the balloons of varying size represent the Despite its limitations as a model, block group level and calibrated with level of pedestrian risk for the city's Space Syntax is effective for predicting pedestrian counts. Ninety-four pedes- most dangerous intersections. This pedestrian volumes in great detail. trian counts were used spanning 42 was determined by dividing the Unlike traditional travel demand different intersections. The prelimi- annual number of collisions by the models analyzing traffic by Traffic nary model produced a .56 correlation peak hour pedestrian flow to create Analysis Zone (TAZ) or census tract, coefﬁcient between predicted pedestrian a Pedestrian Risk Index. Space Syntax provides fine detail by volumes, population density, and modeling street segments and intersec- observed pedestrian counts. A second This innovative approach allows deci- tions. The model is also less compli- round of calibration including popula- sion makers to include city-wide cated than other pedestrian modeling tion density modifiers to the central pedestrian exposures in their safety packages (such as Paramics) which use business district resulted in a .77 analysis for the first time, a key factor micro-simulation, cellular automata, correlation coefficient.* This model in determining actual pedestrian risk. and other “agent-based” approaches. was used to estimate pedestrian The highest pedestrian volumes are However, the Space Syntax interface is volumes for streets throughout the predicted in downtown with other complicated and requires advanced City. These data were segmented high volume predictions for the north knowledge of GIS, spatial projections, by intersection and compared to and east of Lake Merritt and the area and database manipulation. In terms of SWITRS pedestrian collision data surrounding the intersection of the modeling, little work has been done to establish the risk index. Fruitvale Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. Downtown streets account to integrate more sophisticated land- Map 20 shows predicted pedestrian for nearly 5% of the City’s total use measures into the analysis. volumes by street segment where pedestrian volume yet comprise *Very few people live in Oakland’s central business district, resulting in very low estimates of daytime darker shades represent higher vol- only 1% of total street area. The population density from the 2000 Census. Density umes. The pedestrian volume map dis- mean peak hour pedestrian flow modiﬁers were derived from 2000 employment statistics provided by the State of California’s plays peak hour pedestrian flow in for downtown was 245 pedestrians Economic Development Department

148 | Pedestrian Master Plan For example, the Space Syntax model for Oakland under-predicted several key intersections in the downtown because it does not include mass transit as a source of pedestrian activity. Similarly, recreational activity on the streets surrounding Lake Merritt was not included in the model. Space Syntax also does not address behav- ioral factors such as street preferences, perceptions of safety, aesthetics, and the like.

For additional information, see the Space Syntax Laboratory (http://www.spacesyntax.com/).

Pedestrian Master Plan | 149 Appendix F: Selected Bibliography

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District. Ewing, Reid. 1999 (August). Traffic Fehr & Peers Associates. 2001. Existing 2002 (January). AC Transit Short Range Calming: State of the Practice. Crosswalk Warrants. San Francisco, CA. Transit Plan, 2001-2010. Oakland, CA. Prepared for the U.S. Department Guttenplan, Martin, Bruce W. Landis, of Transportation, Federal Highway Alameda County. 2000 (July). Alameda Linda Crider, and Douglas S. McLeod. Administration, Office of Safety County Health Status Report 2000. 2001. “Multi-Modal Level of Service Research and Development and Office Oakland, CA: Alameda County Public (LOS) Analysis at a Planning Level.” of Human Environment; prepared by Health Department, Community TRB Paper No. 01-3084. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Assessment, Planning and Education FHWA-RD-99-135. Herms, B.F. 1972. Pedestrian Crosswalk Unit (CAPE). Study: Accidents in Painted and Alameda County Congestion Federal Highway Administration. 2001. Unpainted Crosswalks. Washington, DC: Management Agency. 2001 (July). Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Highway Research Board. HRR 406. Alameda Countywide Bicycle Plan. Travel: A Recommended Approach. U.S. Institute of Transportation Studies. 2001 Prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates. Department of Transportation (www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ (February). City of Oakland: An Appleyard, Donald. 1981. Livable bikeped/design.htm). Enforcement and Engineering Analysis Streets. Berkeley, CA: University of of Traffic Safety Programs. Richmond, California Press. Federal Highway Administration. 2002a CA: University of California, Richmond (February). Safety Effects of Marked Bay Area Rapid Transit District. 2000 Field Station. Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at (September). Five and Ten Year Access Uncontrolled Locations: Executive Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Targets. Oakland, CA. Summary and Recommended 2000. “Roundabouts.” Status Report. California Department of Transportation. Guidelines. McLean, VA: U.S. Vol. 35, No. 5, May 13. 2001 (March) Accommodating Non- Department of Transportation. Jones, Thomas L. and Patrick Tomcheck. Motorized Travel. Deputy Directive FHWA-RD-01-075. 2000. “Pedestrian Accidents in Marked Number: DD-64. and Unmarked Crosswalks: A Federal Highway Administration. 2002b Quantitative Study.” ITE Journal. Center for Third World Organizing. (March). Pedestrian Facilities Users September. Forthcoming. Transportation for Guide: Providing Safety and Mobility. Healthy Communities. Oakland, CA. McLean, VA: U.S. Department of Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Transportation. FHWA-RD-01-102. 1994 (December). San Francisco Bay Area

150 | Pedestrian Master Plan 1990 Regional Travel Characteristics, Oakland, City of. 1998 (March). Envision Tester, June M. 2001. “Child Pedestrian Working Paper #4, 1990 MTC Travel Oakland: Land Use and Transportation Injury in Oakland.” Oakland, CA. Survey. Oakland, CA. Element, City of Oakland General Plan. Unpublished paper. Oakland, CA: Community and Economic Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Transportation Research Board. 2000. Development Agency. 2001a (May). Travel Forecasts for the Highway Capacity Manual. Washington, San Francisco Bay Area, 1990 – 2025: Oakland, City of. 1999 (July). Bicycle D.C.: National Research Council. Auto Ownership, Trip Generation and Master Plan, Part of the Land Use & U.S. Access Board. 1999, November. Trip Distribution, Data Summary. Transportation Element of the Oakland Accessible Rights-of-Way: A Design Oakland, CA. General Plan. Oakland, CA. Guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Portland, City of. 1998a (June). Portland Architectural and Transportation 2001b (May). 1998 Pedestrian Design Guide. Portland, OR: Barriers Compliance. Base Year Validation of Travel Demand Office of Transportation, Engineering and U.S. Department of Health and Human Models for the San Francisco Bay Development, Pedestrian Transportation Services. 2001. The Surgeon General’s Area (BAYCAST-90), Technical Summary. Program. Call to Action to Prevent and Decrease Oakland, CA. Portland, City of. 1998b (June). Portland Overweight and Obesity. Rockville, MD: National Highway Traffic Safety Pedestrian Master Plan. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Health and Human Administration and Federal Highway Office of Transportation, Engineering Services, Public Health Service, Office of Administration. 2000 (April). Pedestrian and Development, Pedestrian the Surgeon General. and Bicycle Strategic Planning Research Transportation Program. Workshops, Final Report. Surface Transportation Policy Project. Oakland, City of. 1996 (June). Open 2000a (May). Beyond Gridlock: Meeting Space, Conservation, and Recreation California’s Transportation Needs in the (OSCAR) Element, City of Oakland Twenty First Century. Washington, DC. General Plan. Oakland, CA. Surface Transportation Policy Project. Oakland, City of. 1998 (January). Street 2000b (September). Dangerous by Tree Plan. Oakland, CA: Parks, Design: Pedestrian Safety in California. Recreation and Cultural Services. Washington, DC.

Pedestrian Master Plan | 151